is a confusion and obvious blindness to prefer the last to the
first. I am not angry at virtue being placed below pleasure, but at
her being mixed up at all with pleasure, which she despises, whose
enemy she is, and from which she separates herself as far as
possible, being more at home with labour and sorrow, which are
manly troubles, than with your womanish good things.

III. It was necessary to insert this argument, my Liberalis,
because it is the part of virtue to bestow those benefits which we
are now discussing, and it is most disgraceful to bestow benefits
for any other purpose than that they should be free gifts. If we
give with the hope of receiving a return, we should give to the
richest men, not to the most deserving: whereas we prefer a
virtuous poor man to an unmannerly rich one. That is not a benefit,
which takes into consideration the fortune of the receiver.
Moreover, if our only motive for benefiting others was our own
advantage, those who could most easily distribute benefits, such as
rich and powerful men, or kings, and persons who do not stand in
need of the help of others, ought never to do so at all; the gods
would not bestow upon us the countless blessings which they pour
upon us unceasingly by night and by day, for their own nature
suffices them in all respects, and renders them complete, safe, and
beyond the reach of harm; they will, therefore, never bestow a
benefit upon any one, if self and self interest be the only cause
for the bestowal of benefits. To take thought, not where your
benefit will be best bestowed, but where it may be most profitably
placed at interest, from whence you will most easily get it back,
is not bestowal of benefits, but usury. Now the gods have nothing
to do with usury; it follows, therefore, that they cannot be
liberal; for if the only reason for giving is the advantage of the